81 —עידוד להצטרף לחברת משניות בעל פה ודיון הלכתי

B"H, Sunday, Eve of Rosh Chodesh Tammuz, 5703.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I am writing now to inform your honor that last week here we completed a siyum on Shas Mishnah by heart for the Mishnayos Baal Peh Society organized by "Machane Yisrael." After the siyum, we also divided up the Shas again for the coming year (from after Shavuos 5705 until Tishrei 5704). Once again, we encourage all our friends and, in general, all those who study and love Torah—and especially you—to participate in this society and to publicize among all their acquaintances about purifying the air through the letters of Torah. There is an allusion and connection in Nigleh d'Oraysa between air and reviewing Torah by heart: in Sanhedrin 109a it says "air causes forgetfulness... a bad sign for Torah," while "the air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise" (Bava Basra 158b), which relates to understanding. We should strive that they too join this society and review Mishnayos by heart while walking on the way, as explained at length in the talks of my father-in-law, the Rebbe.

Through these participants joining together in one society, there is an added advantage: "It is not comparable when many perform a mitzvah together..."

I ask your forgiveness for not answering your letter on time due to various preoccupations and reasons. Even now time does not permit much, but I will nevertheless respond to some points you raised in your letter.

a) Regarding your view that you do not accept my answer concerning why in Maseches Shabbos chapter 2 mishnah 5 both reasons are included—ma'alin bakodesh (we ascend in holiness) and days going out as one—even though in Shabbos (21b) it is a dispute among Amoraim. I wrote that we find similar cases elsewhere: Berachos (59a), "therefore let us say both," and Bava Basra (75a), "let it be like this law and like that law." You do not agree because there both aspects are needed as explained by Maharsha and Tosafos Rid, but here one reason suffices. However, even here one can say that several reasons require both. Even though from the Gemara it seems otherwise—and just as in Berachos and Bava Basra one opinion disagrees but still we rule like both—the gates of reasoning are never closed. For example: if someone begins lighting candles mid-Chanukah because of days going out he would certainly light like everyone else; if only because of ma'alin bakodesh there might be doubt (see Orach Chaim end of siman 672). The reason of ma'alin bakodesh determines that we light according to days going out rather than days coming in; ma'alin bakodesh only excludes decreasing but does not require increasing from the start even though we learn it from a verse. Ma'alin bakodesh is learned from a verse; days going out is just logic.

b) You brought up Rabbi Yochanan's question in Ta'anis (29a): had I been there I would have established Tisha B'Av on the tenth because most of the sanctuary burned then. Yet Rabbi Yochanan holds in Bava Kama (22a) "his fire is like his arrow," meaning all action is completed at ignition. So why did he want to establish mourning on the tenth? The reasoning behind Nimukei Yosef requires lengthy discussion but regarding your question I do not understand it: In Ta'anis they discuss which day Jews should mourn their calamity—it does not depend on when non-Jews finished their part. For example: if someone strikes another who dies days later from his wound, his relatives mourn on the day of death—not injury.

c) Regarding what you wrote about the destruction being G‑d's fire so He could always retrieve His arrow: see Rosh Hashanah (18a) that a decree with an oath cannot be torn up—so it was with the destruction as stated explicitly in Eichah Rabbasi introduction section: immediately G‑d swore... Even if Rav disagrees there (see how he explains "written with truth" regarding communal decrees—see Yevamos 105a), still everything depends on teshuvah (and Rosh Hashanah 16b-17b says sometimes punishment is delayed so they might repent), and everything is in Heaven's hands except fear of Heaven (Berachos 33b). Perhaps according to your reasoning this is only a side reason why He does not retrieve His arrow—not that lighting the fire itself cannot be reversed.

d) You asked about my previous answer regarding Chanukah—that already on day one there was enough oil for eight days since it's miraculous so natural laws don't apply; thus perhaps each moment or day was a new miracle. There are several answers: First, I wrote that if through a miracle there was enough oil for eight days from day one then Beis Shammai's view—to light according to incoming days—makes sense; otherwise it's unclear why light for incoming days on day one? You ask that perhaps that's not so—then Beis Shammai's logic isn't clear. Second: All matters requiring an eight-day miracle (purity, making new oil day one, four-day journey each way etc.) were already present on day one—they weren't created later; next year it became clear how the miracle worked—that there was no interruption with impure oil—and this intent existed already on day one; nothing changed except with respect to oil itself. Third: Why multiply miracles unnecessarily? For example: with Elisha's jug of oil—it didn't diminish (Melachim II 4:7); "He who told oil to burn can tell vinegar to burn" (Ta'anis 25a)—do we say each moment was a new miracle? If so why did it burn during daylight when candles aren't needed? Also: do we know for sure that good comes faster than punishment? See Berachos (54a): Lot's wife is listed together with hailstones—so it's only an allusion not proof. Consider also Egyptian plagues—some ended naturally some via prayer.

e) Regarding my previous letter about Beis Yosef's answer—that they divided oil into eight parts—I questioned based on Zevachim (88a): vessels are sanctified only when full; thus menorah lamps weren't full? But now I see my error—the menorah oil was sanctified by measuring half a log using Temple measures as stated in Menachos (85b); thus even daily menorah lamps weren't filled completely since they held more than half a log as proven there (89a): "they measured top-down." Why were menorah lamps larger than half a log? See Yerushalmi cited by Tosafos D"H veshiyaru—that if only thick wicks were found more oil was added.

f) You noted since lighting isn't an avodah (Yoma 24b) and Rambam rules even initially it's valid by non-kohen (Beis HaMikdash ch.9 halacha 7), why inaugurate menorah specifically through lighting? The reason seems clear: inauguration means beginning use for its purpose—as Rashi explains Exodus 28:41—and menorah's purpose per many verses is to kindle lamps continually; thus its inauguration must be lighting. The Mishnah innovates it's specifically at twilight; Rambam adds "only through kindling at twilight," based on Gemara which says main thing is cleaning them each morning—and whether cleaning or arranging wicks/oil happens morning or evening doesn't matter as long as kindling allows for morning cleaning. That lighting isn't avodah isn't because illuminating lamps lacks importance but because human action isn't significant—the flame rises by itself as explained elsewhere—so it's irrelevant for inauguration.

g) You also wrote based on Yerushalmi Shekalim ch.4 halacha 2 that shulchan/menorah/altars/paroches prevent sacrifices being offered; Megillas Ta'anis ch.15 says they spent eight days building altar finishing on eighth—so altar didn't exist before then so cleaning menorah wasn't real avodah but just mitzvah without sacrificial status; thus no issue with sanctifying vessels only when full nor need for miracle since impurity is overridden communally—but that's incorrect since then kindling would be mere mitzvah not korban! Also impurity/Shabbos are derived from same verse per Toras Kohanim cited by Rambam Hilchos Temidin uMusafin ch.3 halacha 10—so how did they kindle menorah then on Shabbos? Elsewhere it's implied they lit eight consecutive days! Also how could they use menorah designated for service for non-service purposes? Perhaps since they made new menorah then per Rosh Hashanah (24b)—and sacred vessels before use may be used by laymen—but still what's source for this mitzvah if there's no Torah obligation? On contrary—it would be foreign fire! Entering sanctuary without service incurs lashes per Rambam Hilchos Beis HaMikdash ch.2 halacha 4.

By way of aside—in Megillas Ta'anis note ch.8 re Mar-Cheshvan 23rd when Suriga was removed from city gate etc., when Hasmoneans prevailed they made it a holiday; similarly Kislev third removal of Simuata from courtyard etc.—again made holiday—which implies purification began late Cheshvan/early Kislev so why wait until Kislev 25th? In Sefer Chashmonaim I found "they built new altar... renewed all holy vessels... placed menorah... lit its lamps... On twenty-fifth Kislev... offered sacrifices... celebrated dedication eight days." But I'm hesitant to bring proof from such books though Ben Sira/Wisdom of Solomon are sometimes cited.

Regarding Yerushalmi above—that shulchan etc prevent offerings—and conclusion there prevents inner service at least (and what Kehillas Yaakov writes about Aron surely refers only theoretically since Second Temple lacked Aron—but difficult since learning exclusion from placement doesn't prevent nor does paroches prevent as Pnei Moshe notes). In Tosefta Menachos ch.6 shulchan/menorah/altars prevent each other but paroches isn't mentioned nor distinction between inner/outer service.

Perhaps reason Torah didn't make them essential is because Aron/paroches aren't used directly—sprinkling blood toward paroches/between staves counts even without touching—as Tosafos Zevachim 15a notes; see Minchas Chinuch Hilchos Avodas Yom Kippur ch.3 halacha 5; haven't found Rambam ruling yet but seems he disagrees with Yerushalmi/Tosefta based on Zevachim (59a): if altar uprooted incense may still be burned there—if own service can't be performed certainly others can't—and that's source for other vessels too.

Summary

The Rebbe encourages joining communal Torah study initiatives such as Mishnayos Baal Peh Societies for spiritual benefit and unity, while addressing complex halachic questions about Chanukah miracles and Temple service with depth and clarity.